Romney Strapped Dog in Carrier to Roof of Car, Drove 12 Hours

He should have gone to jail in 1983:

Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus’s rather visceral protest. [The dog beshat himself.]

Massachusetts’s animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal “in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.” An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying “it’s definitely something I’d want to check out.” The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it’s against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and “if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal.”

DoD: More Concerned with Appropriations than Appropriate Medical Care for Soldiers

So what happens if you develop a software system that enables Army physicians in Iraq to seamlessly track medical information on a wounded soldier through the Army’s medical system and into the Veterans Affairs medical system? And what if that software solved the problems that plagued Walter Reed Army Hospital and its treatment of wounded veterans? And what if you developed it on the cheap? And what if your software was lauded by the highest of the higher-ups in the Army and VA?

Answer: You get transferred to the equivalent of “bureacratic Siberia.”

Such was the fate of Lt. Col. Mike Fravell, who developed the patient-tracking system in 2003 and created a Web-based version last year while on a fellowship at VA.

The ability to transfer electronic medical information between DoD and the VA is critical to providing the highest quality health care to the men and women who have been wounded in combat .
— David Gorman, executive director of Disabled American Veterans

The transfer was in retaliation for Fravell’s public criticism of the two Defense health agencies, a congressional source said. At a hearing in May of the House Veteran Affairs Committee, Fravell spoke highly of the two patient-tracking systems he developed and criticized MHS’ reluctance to work with VA on the two systems. “I think on the DoD side, things are very territorial,” Fravell told the committee.

The transfer occurred despite widespread praise for Fravell’s systems. Army Chief of Staff George Casey said this month they provided the Army with “improved visibility on location, medical status and progress of soldiers’ care.” David Gorman, executive director of Disabled American Veterans, said, “The ability to transfer electronic medical information between DoD and the VA is critical to providing the highest quality health care to the men and women who have been wounded in combat or otherwise require medical care after serving in the military.”

Now why would the Department of Defense transfer a guy who had created a cheap, effective, popular tool that aids the medical treatment and care of sick and wonded soldiers? Can you spell money?

At stake are billions of dollars. Through fiscal 2006, AHLTA [Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application] alone cost Defense $775 million to develop and deploy. The system’s fiscal 2007 budget is $392 million. By comparison, [Fravell’s] Joint Patient Tracking Application system cost less than $1 million to develop and $2 million a year to maintain.

[…]

“Warrantless Wiretaps” Now Spun into “Warrant-Free Eavesdropping”

This reeks of classic Rove.

The AP — and therefore official mainstream media — wording for Bush/Cheney’s warrantless wiring taping program is suddenly the new and improved “warrant-free program” or alternatively, “warrant-free eavesdropping.”

“Warrantless” wiring taping sounds as if what you did was without a warrant, which would make it illegal. “Warrant-free” just means you were unfettered by warrants. That sounds so much nicer.

Think about it. Warrantless wiring taping sounds as if what you did was without a warrant, which would make it illegal. Warrant-free just means you were unfettered by warrants. That sounds so much nicer, doesn’t it? Like sugar-free is superior to sugarless, or law-free is better than illegal.

And eavesdropping is what Lucy did to Ethel when she was trying to find out what Ricky was getting for her birthday. Wiring tapping…well, that makes makes you think of Watergate.

Here was yesterday’s debut usage, picked up by CNN:

The Senate subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office Wednesday, demanding documents and elevating the confrontation with President Bush over the administration’s warrant-free eavesdropping on Americans.

And here’s today’s, picked up by newspapers everywhere:

Just Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, demanding documents pertaining to terrorism-era warrant-free eavesdropping. “It’s an outrageous request,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

I like that “terrorism-era” tacked in front. That tells you these are dangerous times we’re living in, and they call for desperate measures. Which it’s really not AP’s job to tell you.

Meanwhile at trustworthy Reuters, it’s still warrantless, plus it’s domestic spying:

The assertion of executive privilege to the congressional subpoenas for material related to the probe on the firings of the prosecutors comes one day after Leahy’s committee subpoenaed the White House for documents related to the administration’s warrantless domestic spying program.

Right on, Reuters.

Quote du Jour

Film is not part of the real world. This is why people will have sex on film, commit suicide on film, die of some wasting disease on film, commit murder on film. They’re adding material to the public dream. There’s a sense in which film is independent of the filmmaker, independent of the people who appear.

— Don DeLillo (1936- ), American writer

Despite Cancer Risk, Rumsfeld Rammed NutraSweet Through FDA in 1980s; New Study Appears to Confirm Cancer Connection

A study by a team of Italian scientists reportedly concludes that there is a link between the sweetner aspartame, which is sold under the brand NutraSweet, and cancer. According to a report in the Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal, the study found that aparstame is “particularly potent when animals are exposed in utero and during development. The rats were exposed to the sweetener at levels above and below the recommended daily maximums for people.”

The fact that Donald Rumsfeld’s fingerprints are all over the approval of this chemical additive, may cause regular users — especially diabetics — to give it a second look.

Results of the study were published this month in Environmental Health Perspectives, a U.S. government sponsored, peer-reviewed journal.

Studies linking aspartame and cancer are not new. In fact, a connection was detected in testing soon after the chemical additive was discovered by a chemist working for G.D. Searle & Company, in 1965. As a result of the early studies, the FDA refused to approve aspartame as a food additive throughout the 1970s.

That changed in 1981 when Ronald Reagan won the White House and his Republican appointees took control of the FDA:

The head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, who had not approved legalization of aspartame, due to the brain cancer in rats issue, was fired on the first day Ronald Reagan was president… Reagan hired Arthur Hayes MD [a former defense contractor], who legalized aspartame a year later.

According to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now:

[Aspartame] was approved in the early 1980s after intense lobbying efforts by Donald Rumsfeld when he worked as CEO for the pharmaceutical company GD Searle. Rumsfeld is said to have engineered the firing of [Jere Goyan] the FDA commissioner who had held up aspartame’s release following studies showing possible links to brain cancer.

This source says Hayes manipulated FDA findings on the additive:

The new commissioner of the FDA, a Reagan Rumsfeld appointee named Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr. [sic], named a five-person Scientific Committee to review the earlier findings. When the vote went 3-2 against approval of aspartame, Hayes did what any fair-minded citizen might do, and appointed a sixth committee member. The committee voted 3-3, leaving Hull to cast the deciding vote, approving aspartame for use in dry products. Aspartame was then approved for use in soft drinks in 1983.

Hayes was later rewarded for approving the drug with a job at Searle:

In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit [and was appointed dean of the New York Medical College and then in 1986] joined Searle’s public-relations firm as senior medical advisor.

Before it was over Rumsfeld also took a bonus for his role in aspartame’s approval:

Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.

The fact that Donald Rumsfeld’s fingerprints are all over the approval of this chemical additive, may cause regular users — especially diabetics — to give it a second look.

Book Review: American Torture — Harvesting the ‘Fruits of Information’

“American Torture,” by Michael Otterman; Pluto Press, 2007.

For most Americans, the disturbing images released in 2004 from Abu Ghraib, the notorious United States-run prison in Iraq, were the first evidence they had seen that their country conducts systematic, highly organized, brutal torture. But the fact is, as Michael Otterman so thoroughly documents in “American Torture,” U.S. military and intelligence services have engaged in codified, state-sanctioned torture for more than a half-century.

Otterman begins his dismal investigation more than 60 years ago, at the beginning of the Cold War, when the United States began developing torture techniques with the same single-mindedness, determination and Yankee know-how that it used when developing the atom bomb that ended World War II and started the Cold War. As an amateur on the torture scene — but an eager student — the U.S. looked to the experts, Russia and China, for the underpinnings of its torture program.

Torture will continue to be used as a means of terror — it works exceedingly well towards this end.

The CIA — surprise! — was at the forefront of torture research, looking variously at pharmaceutical, electrical and psychological means of extracting information from subjects. From there it was just a short hop to more sophisticated stress situations: sleep deprivation, forced standing, sensory deprivation and hypothermia.

By the 1950s, the U.S. Army was conducting “stress inoculation schools” where soldiers were exposed to torture techniques to “toughen them up” so they could withstand torture in the event of capture. It was a fertile proving ground for experimentation in advanced torture techniques and probably only resulted in a few thousand cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome in participants, a syndrome that did not officially exist back then.

Otterman coolly, with a journalist’s detachment and clear, purposeful prose, follows the codification of torture in the U.S. military and intelligence services. From there, once you’ve written the book on torture, the logical next step is to export it. So the U.S. sent torture trainers carrying torture manuals, like missionaries carrying a kind of anti-Bible, to Latin America, to Uruguay, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.

Subsequently, torture as an export product and legitimate policy of U.S. military and intelligence services was blessed by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and, more recently, taken to new heights by our current commander and chief, George W. Bush. Under G.W., torture has been redefined, much in the way “sex” was redefined by Bill Clinton.

Today, torture is only “torture” if it causes lasting physical or psychological damage (skin scars don’t count), and then only if the interrogator who used, say, waterboarding techniques, intended to inflict lasting psychological or physical damage on the interrogatee. Of course, no interrogator would intentionally seek to hurt his target, he would only follow the prescribed guidelines of his government to extract the information necessary to fight an imaginary war on terror, right?

As Otterman points out, torture is the worst way to try to extract information (see interview with the author below). Indeed, he lauds the FBI’s use of nonviolent rapport-building tactics as yielding 1) more useful information, and 2) yielding information that will stand up in a court of law because it was not extracted via violations of a subject’s human rights. That’s why George Bush cannot allow Guantanamo detainees to go to trial — they’ve been tortured and their admissions of guilt, like their proclamations of innocence, were extracted under duress.

“American Torture” is an easy book to read, insofar as it is well-written and well-organized. But it is a difficult book to read insofar as it provides a glimpse into the horrors of torture perpetrated by American soldiers and civilians, and condoned and encouraged by their government.

If you love America and what it ostensibly stands for — fairness, freedom, justice for all — then read this book. But if you don’t want to end up hating your country because it engages in inhuman and barbaric modes of torture that deny fairness, freedom, justice for all, and you don’t want to be left howling with inchoate anger and helpless frustration, don’t read it.

Frankly, I’d rather deal with the permanent damage inflicted by “American Torture” on my psyche than live in benighted ignorance of the damage our nation wreaks on human beings in captivity every day.

Interview with “American Torture” author Michael Otterman

Pensito Review had an opportunity to ask Michael Otterman about his new book, “American Torture.” Otterman is a native New Yorker (born and raised) and wrote the bulk of the book as his masters thesis. We caught up with him in Sydney, Australia.

Pensito Review: How did you become interested in the topic of torture, American-style?

Michael Otterman: I got interested in the topic itself in April 2004, when the Abu Ghraib images were first released. I began researching the scandal as part of my Masters in Peace and Conflict Studies degree at the University of Sydney that I was completing at the time. The small university paper grew into my thesis, then I just kept writing till it took the form of a book.

PR: The book obviously was exhaustively researched and well-documented. How long did it take you to write it?

MO: All up, it took me two-and-a-half years — from mid-2004 till the end of 2006.

PR: Are there still topics that you wish you could have explored, but were prevented because the source material remains classified?

MO: I should note that my book relies exclusively on declassified U.S. government docs — studies, reports, transcripts, memos, etc. I was surprised actually just how much these documents reveal. Take for instance the 1963 Kubark manual or the 1983 Human Exploitation manual.

These are very detailed CIA interrogation handbooks — each with entire chapters devoted to “coercive techniques.” These manuals were formally declassified in 1997, with very few redactions. On the other hand, there are still documents that have not come to light. Many, in fact, were destroyed in the 1970s, especially those dealing with CIA-sponsored human experimentation.

I’ve made many FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests to the CIA, some documents were turned over to me, though others have not [been]. In particular, the agency was reluctant in releasing a CIA paper entitled “Hostile Control and Interrogation Techniques,” written in the 1950s. The only conclusion that I can draw from this denial due to “national security concerns” is that the techniques described in this document are similar to the classified ones authorized for use today. I would expect these methods to be psychological tortures I discuss in the book, namely sensory deprivation, forced standing, humiliation, etc.

PR: What was the most unexpected finding in your research?

MO: The fact that the CIA maintained in the late 1950s a safe-house in New York City, then later San Francisco, where agents would lure unsuspecting Americans so they [could] be dosed surreptitiously with LSD was quite interesting. In fact, the discovery that covert CIA funding of LSD research in U.S. universities likely jump-started counterculture interest in the drug was truly fascinating.

PR: Do you think anything can be done to stop the American government from employing torture techniques, or has it become simply too ingrained in our military and intelligence systems?

MO: Torture has been with us since day one, used throughout history to punish, terrorize and extract information. Torture will continue to be used as a means of terror — it works exceedingly well towards this end.

I do believe that awareness about the history of U.S. use of torture will turn people away from relying on it to extract information. The history shows that torture is actually the worst way to interrogate a prisoner and prevent the next 9/11. Though getting people in power to realize this is a different situation.

There are signs that awareness is slowly beginning to spread, even in U.S. government circles. For instance, the Intelligence Science Board recently reported that American psychological tortures are “outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.” See their report here
or the New York Times story on it.

PR: What is the one message you want your American readers to take away from your book?

MO: Apart from providing a larger context to the Abu Ghraib scandal and abuses at Guantanamo, I’d like to make clear that torture, especially psychological torture, should be dropped by U.S. intelligence agencies and replaced with the more reliable “rapport-building” methods favored by FBI. Torture is counterproductive, it radicalizes enemies, puts our soldiers at greater risk, destroys our moral high ground and in the end, makes us less safe.

Does torture work? OK, well it “works” if you want a false confession — this is why Stalin favored these very methods (sensory deprivation, induced hypothermia, forced standing). But, these methods do not ensure accurate and reliable information. Under torture, people say anything to stop the sensation of pain. They say things they believe the interrogator wants to hear — not necessarily the truth.

The last chapter of the book, “The Dual State,” clearly lays out an array of conclusions about torture, using the history of American use of torture since 1945 as a guide. The paragraphs begin with the following sentences in bold:

  • Torture is self-defeating.
  • Torture is unnecessary.
  • Torture does not yield reliable information.
  • Torture is corruptive.
  • SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) techniques constitute torture.
  • SERE techniques profoundly disrupt the body and mind.

The last section simply ends as the book begins, with the story of Mamdouh Habib — a tragic, cautionary account of the real human cost of torture.

For the latest from Michael Otterman, visit: www.americantorture.com

Poll: Young People Leaning Blue

A new CBS News/MTV/New York Times (talk about your avis of evil) poll of 17- to 29-year-olds finds that there is interest in the Democratic front runners among America’s youth. Not only that, but according to National Journal’s PollWatch, they are already paying attention to an election that’s still nearly a year and a half away.

Democrats may have more reason to be optimistic this time around, because 58 percent of prospective young voters said they are paying at least some attention to the 2008 presidential election. And 54 percent of young voters polled said they would vote for a Democratic presidential candidate over a Republican if the election were held today. Just 32 percent said they’d side with the GOP.

Although a whopping 45 percent said they’re not enthusiastic about any candidate, the Democratic Party’s two front-runners — Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama — were the only two names to garner a respectable amount of enthusiasm at 17 percent and 18 percent, respectively, in an open-ended question. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) was a distant third with just 4 percent saying they were enthusiastic about his candidacy, and six other candidates received less than 3 percent.

When it comes to the candidates’ messages, it’s the economy the youngest voting bloc most wants to hear about: Twenty-three percent said economic issues are their No. 1 priority in the presidential race, followed by the war in Iraq at 20 percent and education policy at 15 percent. In general, however, 18 percent said the war is the “most important issue” facing people of their generation, and 32 percent said it’s the biggest issue for the country as a whole — the top slot in both questions.

Poll: Majority No Longer Believe Professional Homophobes’ Key Antigay Argument

Professional homophobes such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for American, the televangelist Pat Robertson and others raise millions of dollars every year based on the precepts that being gay is a “lifestyle choice” and therefore gay people are willful sinners who are not worthy of equal treatment under the law — and that the gay rights movement is a powerful threat that requires millions of dollars to fight.

Unfortunately, this shift in attitudes will not affect the professional antigay groups from raising millions from their Christian extremist base.

However, if the findings in a new poll are accurate, these professional hatemongers have apparently lost credibility on the issue of “lifestyle choice” among a majority of Americans. Via RainbowZine, a new poll from CNN shows for the first time that a majority believes that gay people cannot change their sexuality:

Fifty-six percent of about 515 poll respondents said they do not believe sexual orientation can be changed. In 2001, 45 percent of those responding to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll held that belief. In 1998, according to a CNN/Time poll, the number was 36 percent.

In addition, 42 percent of respondents to the current poll said they believe homosexuality results from upbringing and environment, while 39 percent said they believe it is something a person is born with — a close division that reflects the national debate over the issue.

However, those numbers are greatly changed from the 1970s and ’80s, in which fewer than 20 percent of Americans said a person is born homosexual. In a 1977 poll, the number was 13 percent.

This shift in attitude is limited to within the vast majority of Americans who are not evangelical Christians, and it will unfortunately have no effect on the short-term ability of professional antigay activists to raise millions from their Christian extremist base.